GoPro Project Claims Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless

EwanPalmer (2536690) writes "A project involving GoPro cameras and people living on the streets of San Francisco has suggests technology is making people feel less compassionate towards the homeless. Started by Kevin F Adler, the Homeless GoPro project aims to 'build empathy through a first-hand perspective' by strapping one of the cameras onto homeless volunteers to document their lives and daily interactions. One of the volunteers, Adam Reichart, said he believes it is technology which is stopping people from feeling sympathy towards people living on the street as it's easier to have 'less feelings when you're typing something' than looking at them in the eye"

Comments

No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't giving pandhandlers money before, either, now I just have my phone to look at instead of nothing.

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, are shoes making people less empathetic? Before shoes, we had nothing to stare at while avoiding eye contact, but now AFTER THAT BASTARD INVENTED SHOES, everybody's got an excuse.

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[Opportunist]

Hey, I'm as extroverted as the next guy, I look at your shoes when I'm talking with you!

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[squiggleslash]

Moreover it's clear there's been a shift in politics that's been particularly acute since Reagan and Thatcher, where values once parodied (not even entirely common at the time) by Charles Dickens, but advocated by, say, Ayn Rand, have steadily become more mainstream. These values are actively hostile towards people who have "failed" in their lives. And those views have been pushed constantly by a certain small group of extremists who, over time, have become more and more mainstream as other views - not directly related to the "If you can't kick a man when he's down, how are you going to be able to kick him when he's standing up" ideology - they've become associated with have become more popular.

I think blaming technology for the shift is a stretch. The view may have started to rise just as the personal computer revolution began to take shape, but why on Earth would anyone think the invention of the Commodore 64 or the Atari ST would shape someone's view on homelessness?

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[squiggleslash]

Steinbeck is a good bookmark to use, because it's at that point there was a change in perception, not because of Steinbeck per-se (but he helped), but because the Great Depression focussed attention on the fact that "failure" was possible for people of all types, and such failure could be disastrous not merely for the individual affected, but for their friends, families, and the overall health of the economy.

The result was that between FDR/Bevan and Reagan/Thatcher there was a dramatic shift in social attitudes towards government provided welfare, the introduction of safety nets, and the creation of systems at every level designed to prevent homelessness from happening and ensure those who became homeless anyway had somewhere to turn.

So your point is sort of valid, but doesn't change the fact that we were on a pro-empathy trend that reversed in the 1980s. Which, after all, is what this story is about. And like I said, it makes more sense to look at the way politics has changed over the last three decades than whether the Commodore 64 would cause someone to think "That homeless person is there because of their own bad decisions, and therefore I don't care and they should live in misery".

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[rezme]

First rule of walking the streets of San Francisco. Don't make eye contact with the panhandlers. You'll be broke within a block. I lived there for 5 years, walked (or took public transit) everywhere, and couldn't go two blocks without passing a half dozen of them. When I first moved there, I'd give some, but it got so annoying to be getting up at 6am, and asked for spare change 12 times between my apartment and the bus stop where I caught the bus to work that I just gave up on it. I'll be the first to admit that there are a number of homeless in SF that are genuinely unable to provide for themselves, but there are far more that are. I lived in the Haight for a while, and I regularly used to get panhandled by teenagers wearing 180$ Doc Martins. I've got loads of sympathy for the homeless, but that doesn't extend to putting myself on the streets in order to feed/clothe/house them.

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[rezme]

For me it's less about "I don't care" and more about "I have limited resources, and what I have is already dedicated 100% toward my own, and my family's survival"

perception

[globaljustin]

I usually don't blame "technology" in the abstract for anything...IMHO it's too reductive of a concept to be useful and always glosses over the actual technical details

This, however, strikes me as different. This is a good thing because it communicates a *need* in a way that our modern society has made obsolete.

In the 18th Century, cities were so small and mixed that the rich **had to see the poor** daily. They had to see how they lived, open on the streets.

Today, for several reasons related to technology, the rich are able to go about their business completely obvlivious to the struggles of the poor.

Those struggles become nothing more than another voice in the din of TV/internet media...in the endless news cycle...easy to marginalize and ignore, even for a really civic-minded rich person...it's just not on their radar screen

This project aims to correct that with technology...I think it's valuable

Re:perception

[lgw]

In the 18th Century, cities were so small and mixed that the rich **had to see the poor** daily. They had to see how they lived, open on the streets.

And so a common solution at the time was to occasionally have the cops beat all the beggars out of town with cudgels. No more problem with seeing the homeless.

The issue isn't seeing, the issue is caring. (And personally, my charity goes to people around the world with much worse problems than America's "poor", people whom I will never see, but that's just me.)

Re:perception

[globaljustin]

The issue isn't seeing, the issue is caring.

right...i get your point (another poster said the same)

what I mean is, today there are good people who see homeless out the car window just bumming around under a bridge and that's all...that gives the perception that *all* homeless people are that way by choice

when our cities were smaller homeless families couldn't hide...

but yeah, i agree that the will to care has to be there in the first place

Re:perception

[lgw]

The biggest problem as I see it is that so many people think it's the government's job now. After all, we pay a lot of taxes and the government has a lot of social programs. Why do more? I used to think that way myself.

But these days, I just accept my taxes as a total loss, and only count as charity what I give to good charities that I trust. I also prefer charities focused on fixing the underlying issues, over the merely palliative.

Re:perception

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it something we *want* the government to do? I'm not saying the current plan is working out, but isn't a reasonable idea that the government can and should deal with the issue?

Re:perception

[Lumpy]

Shanty towns were made illegal, the homeless would not be all over the streets if we allowed shantytowns down near the river or elsewhere.

Re:perception

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think the government is certainly in the best position to help the poor.

Re:perception

[Ol Olsoc]

Shanty towns were made illegal, the homeless would not be all over the streets if we allowed shantytowns down near the river or elsewhere.

I suppose concentration camps or snipers might fit your "I don't want to see the poor ppl." That would be kind of evil though.

Shantytowns are symbolic of failure,

Re:perception

[Anonymous Coward]

No. When the government is doing it, then it becomes a right to a resource that the person is entitled to. They will abuse it and rob the tax payer blind if they are allowed. Charities are more direct and people know that it is being done because people actually care, not because their funds have been confiscated under threat of imprisonment. Not to mention that charities will deny services to moochers and freeloaders who are just out to scam others.

It is interesting that in the US you will see people standing by the road with some short sob story on a piece of cardboard wanting you give them money. In Mexico, the poor are by the side of the road selling stuff, or doing something entertaining to earn your donation. You can guess which one I'd be more inclined to select as the recipient of my donation.

Re:perception

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:perception

[ultranova]

Shantytowns are symbolic of failure,

The failure doesn't disappear just because you make the shantytown illegal. All that accomplishes is make the people who lived there even worse off, for the sake of letting those who didn't pretend the problem doesn't exist. And in a way, it doesn't: a "failure" implies an unintended undesirable consequence of some decision or policy, while demolishing the homes of worst-off members of society for the sake of appearances is an intentional, deliberate action. It confirms that you are okay with this outcome, of treating people like garbage to be thrown aside and disposed of if they aren't economically useful; in other words, you haven't failed, you're simply evil.

Re:perception

[dbIII]

Large numbers of homeless people are symbolic of a failure somewhere - shantytowns may be a symptom of trying to deal with it instead of hiding that there is a problem by moving people along.

Re:perception

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. I'm here in San Francisco now. Outside of my hotel (the Mosser on 4th near Mission) there were a couple (apparently) homeless men. They didn't ask for money or anything. No one was holding a sign. No one was calling out. In March I was in Vegas. Same thing. In Boston it wasn't quite so apparent (but maybe that's because Boston gets pretty cold so they go elsewhere). I was in Jamaica (the island) earlier this year and the poverty is at a level unlike anyplace else in the US. When I'm back home in Miami, people will call out to you. They'll hold up signs. They'll stand at your windows and look at you, sometimes even knock. I see it so often that it no longer even registers to me. It's every day on the work. It's when I walk outside to grab a coffee. It's pretty much every time I go out, I expect someone to be asking for money. (BTW, all this travel is for work.)

But here's the thing: I'm not rich. I give when I can and even when I can't or shouldn't, but my account is about $108 from empty. I worry about paying all my bills each month (mortgage, insurance, groceries, medical). I have some medical issues that I cannot fix now because it would set me back $10K (rotator cuff injury requiring surgery and PT, tooth alignment, weakening vision in left eye). My roof is leaking. My wife's car won't stay charged and the estimate is $300 to replace the alternator and battery. My daughter wants to go on a school trip costing $200. All these things add up and I'm not rich. To provide these things, I work almost constantly. Now I'm not complaining about this; this is the choice I make every day.

But damn, when someone comes up to me and tries to give me a guilt complex about not giving enough, the only thing I can think is, "Fuck off." I may be one of those walking down Mission ignoring you, maybe coming out of the MGM Grand, or reading the menu at a food truck in Austin. But many make the assumption that if I'm in those cities then I have to be loaded. Not the case.

Re:perception

[lgw]

Interesting assertion. I think the government (or parts of it) benefits greatly by creating a permanent underclass dependent on government assistance (giving a man a fish while trying to prevent him from learning to fish). We've seen plenty of clear historical and current evidence of people in power using aid to the poor to create a supply of loyal followers. There's little that's more creepy than a "free" school with the patron's picture everywhere and lessons everyday on what a good person the patron is and so on - this is still common today in parts of the world, as is becoming a powerful government/religious leader because of it. And to me, a poorly structured government charity (one that actually penalizes moving to a minimum wage job) has the same creepy vibe, if to a lesser degree.

I give to charities that focus on improving communities become self-sufficient and breaking these kinds of traps (though I do have one religious charity I'm slightly skeptical of, they have a solid reputation). Precisely providing that kind of aid without the "and you only have to me my loyal follower" strings attached.

Do we have much evidence of government assistance that actually fixes underlying problems, rather than help keep people satisfies with things as they are? I like to see some rays of hope in that area, somewhere!

Re:perception

[Enigma2175]

No. When the government is doing it, then it becomes a right to a resource that the person is entitled to. They will abuse it and rob the tax payer blind if they are allowed. Charities are more direct and people know that it is being done because people actually care, not because their funds have been confiscated under threat of imprisonment. Not to mention that charities will deny services to moochers and freeloaders who are just out to scam others.

It is interesting that in the US you will see people standing by the road with some short sob story on a piece of cardboard wanting you give them money. In Mexico, the poor are by the side of the road selling stuff, or doing something entertaining to earn your donation. You can guess which one I'd be more inclined to select as the recipient of my donation.

If they are selling stuff or entertaining you, it is not a "donation", it is a business transaction.

Re:perception

[lgw]

Shantytowns are also a disaster waiting to happen. While there are certainly cynical reasons for outlawing them, a fire that sweeps a shantytown and kills several people, or a flood where a shantytown was built on a floodplain, is a non-cynical reason (and these things have happened). So now we have trailer parks instead, which are harder to afford to be sure, but not by much. You can be pretty far down on your luck and still manage a trailer - I should know.

Re:perception

[lgw]

ill. Ron reagon shut them down to give tax breaks to wall street assholes, and tossed them onto the streets.

Ronald Reagan's tax breaks resulted in increased government revenue, is the thing. Voodoo economics actually worked. Was can argue about where we are now on the Laffer curve, but we know the Carter-era tax brackets were past the point of negative returns.

Why the asylums were closed is anyone's guess. It seems a huge mistake to me, and it cost very little in the scope of government social programs. I could never make sense of that - not even a tinfoil hat theory.

Re:perception

[sir1real]

Yeah, too bad there's no more mental asylums in existence. No, wait... What?

So much misinformation. The controversy with Reagan and mental institutions was when he was governor... of California... so it only applied to California. It's unclear how this could be connected to giving tax breaks to Wall Street. Also, it wasn't about shutting down asylums but releasing patients from the asylums. Furthermore, it wasn't Reagan's idea. Frank Lanterman submitted the bill to the legislature which then passed the bill which Reagan then signed into law.

Re:perception

[clarkkent09]

It is certainly in the best position to make some people help others by force. Government does not create anything and therefore it has nothing to give.

Re:perception

[tragedy]

Charities are more direct and people know that it is being done because people actually care, not because their funds have been confiscated under threat of imprisonment.

The problem with relying on "more direct" charities is that far too many people fall through the cracks of a heterogenous crazy paving of such organizations. Conversely, it also tends to be easier for con-artists to prey on such scattered organizations.

Re:perception

[jopsen]

No. When the government is doing it, then it becomes a right to a resource that the person is entitled to.

Food, shelter, education and health care is not unreasonable rights :)

Anyways, private charity will never cover the need, never... I'm from a country where government works, and it does provide opportunity for people to get back on their feet.

There is still private charity for poor people, but they focus mainly on social aspects, or on the cases where a few fall through the state provided safety net.

My point is, private charity, will never cover more than edge cases. It's never enough to cover everybody, or even the majority of those in need.

Re:perception

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I don't know about being homeless as a choice, but bumming for cash around a bridge certainly is. I mean when you think about it, every major city in the US has missionaries and/or government funded shelters where all of the bare essentials are literally given away for free. So why the need to beg for money on freeway offramps?

Re:perception

[TheSync]

"Why the asylums were closed is anyone's guess."

In California, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was passed "To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism."

The goal of Deinstitutionalization was that instead of being warehoused in huge, remote institutions, mental patients should be returned to communities where, with help, they might achieve some function in society. Unfortunately there was not much funding for the second part, plus some patients chose the streets if they were not involuntarily committed. Thus many deinstitutionalized patients became homeless.

Re:perception

[greenreaper]

Many disagree with you as to whether these things are or should be rights. Some believe that people should be left to starve or freeze to death if they are unwilling or unable to work. (This viewpoint is not uniquely American.)

Deriding people who hold such views for their lack of compassion is non-productive. To win them over, it may be more effective to show how helping the poor benefits them - if indeed it does. For example, public health care benefits everyone who has direct or indirect contact with the public - even the rich - through the prevention of epidemics.

In the Simpsons, the local school puts on a play ("The Nice Man Giveth") to show Mr Burns the personal value of education, when poorly-educated students accidentally serve him rat poison, can't read a map to drive him to hospital, and fail to operate correctly on him. While it does not work in that particular instance, perhaps those who seek funding from the public could do a better job of explaining why the public should care.

Re:perception

[Dahamma]

Actually, I don't agree that food, shelter, educations, and health care are in any way *rights*. I see rights as restrictions that should not be placed on an individual by others. Rights are the basic humans conditions that the government should leave alone and/or protect, depending on the situation.

But that doesn't mean I don't think there are *obligations*. If you have an extreme excess of wealth and no interest in helping others in severe need, you are morally if not financially bankrupt. The fact that many people in this situation seem to pretend to follow "Christian" or other religious practices is even worse, and at some point hypocritical.

I agree with you that private charity will never cover the "need" if the need is in fact just basic income inequality. Private charities do a great job solving issues like diseases because they focus on popular trends or cross-cutting concerns that affect everyone equally. But being poor isn't likely to afflict the child of a wealthy person, and that's where collective pooling of resources come in, ie. taxes - which is where the US system of regressive taxes and selective charities is failing so badly. If you make $70k a year in salary you will pay 30%+ in taxes, but if you make $100M a year from investments you will pay 15% (eh, and yeah, 15% if you are an idiot). Hey, even without all of the tax shelters if you feel generous/guilty and want to donate to a charity, it can be much less! More to homeless albino 3 legged dogs, less to homeless veterans...

Re:perception

[Dahamma]

Ronald Reagan's tax breaks resulted in increased government revenue, is the thing. Voodoo economics actually worked

Increased revenue but MASSIVELY INCREASED spending. So, no, it did not work at all and is still the current model of pretty much every administration after his (Republican and Democrat) as to how to spend way more money than they take in for short term political gain over long term solutions.

Claiming the tax breaks themselves results in increased revenue is horribly conflating correlation with causation. It's much more likely the increased revenue was in fact due to the increased deficit spending, of course.

Re:perception

[TheRaven64]

Actually, the total tax burden for the working and middle classes in the USA is not that different from much of Europe. If you deduct the amount that the US citizen pays for health insurance from the amount that the EU citizen pays in taxes (while receiving socialised medical coverage), it's often quite a lot more. Part of the reason that the US has what appears from the outside to be an irrational distrust of government is that they get such poor value for money from their taxes. This leads to a nasty feedback loop (population expects the government to be incompetent, so it's hard to get competent people to want to work for the government, so the government becomes more incompetent, so the population expects...).

Re:perception

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I actually watched the video just now, and I didn't see any of the "technology induced" problem that they talk about. Most of these people just looked the other way when he asked them. And I know the exact feeling they go through. I personally don't like being begged for money. I don't EVER ask anybody for money, and if I gave money to everybody who asked for it then I wouldn't have any myself either. Naturally when people hassle me like that, I try to ignore them.

Re:perception

[drinkypoo]

The goal of Deinstitutionalization was that instead of being warehoused in huge, remote institutions, mental patients should be returned to communities where, with help, they might achieve some function in society. Unfortunately there was not much funding for the second part

Unfunded mandates are never benevolent. If the idea is that people will get help, but no mechanism for that is in the act, then that idea was constructed to fool fools.

Re:perception

[cold fjord]

You can thank the Democratic Congress for the massively increased spending just as you can thank the Republican Congress that Clinton had for the fiscal discipline.

Re:perception

[Lumpy]

So sleeping under and overpass or in the park is better for them... How honorable you are to support keeping people from at least having a roof over their head.

Re:perception

[tbuddy]

And get wheat toast when they ask for white toast at breakfast!

Re:perception

[phishen]

I don't know about the Mexico bit, but pretty much all homeless people I see by the side of the off ramps fit the bill described above. There was this one lady that always hung out in front of a shopping center near my friend's place giving the same story about trying to save up enough for a bus ride across town. We saw her for months, and I joked that she could have walked there by now. Well, my friend actually stopped to talk to her, let her know that we'd been given the same story by her for months, and actually asked her why she didn't just walk there. The lady looked embarrassed. We never saw her there again.

Re:perception

[HornWumpus]

The next time someone suggests increased taxes now, decreased spending tomorrow. We should demand the Grahm-Rudman spending cuts right fucking now!

Re:perception

[HornWumpus]

They beg for money on the on ramp because they can beat-up the other homeless that want to beg on that on ramp.

_Never_ give money to those particular homeless.

Re:perception

[HornWumpus]

Homeless people don't own the parks.

Funny they never build their shanty towns far from liquor stores and drug dealers.

The solution is a shanty town far from working people and sources of drugs and booze. Perhaps somewhere in Utah. Then I'd be fine with letting them freeze and/or starve elsewhere.

Re:perception

[HornWumpus]

Nobody is stopping them from getting a job and paying rent. Fuck em.

Re:perception

[Wescotte]

Interesting point of view. Why can't/doesn't a government can't care? Also US homeless are still selling you something. Perhaps in the US a sob story is more appealing/profitable than other products?

Re:perception

[Ol Olsoc]

So sleeping under and overpass or in the park is better for them... How honorable you are to support keeping people from at least having a roof over their head.

False Dichotomy.

If you are mentally ill, you should have a place to live in where you get treatment. And that is what most of these folks are.

Re:perception

[lgw]

Claiming the tax breaks themselves results in increased revenue is horribly conflating correlation with causation. It's much more likely the increased revenue was in fact due to the increased deficit spending, of course.

Well, I don't try to argue the Left out of its notion that for every problem the solution is government spending, but the point of voodoo economics was that lowering the frankly abusive top tax rates would stimulate a lot of spending and new investment, and that seems to have happened. Also, tax revenue went up in a very straightforward way: the rich have much flexibility in when, where and how they get compensated. Dropping tax rates caused a bunch of income and gains to "magically appear", as people stopped playing games to hide it. It's much like dropping the price of a computer game below the "easier to buy than pirate" price point can result in 10x sales.

Re:perception

[Collective 0-0009]

If you make $70k and pay 30+% in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES alone, you're doing it wrong. I make more than that (and have two dependents) but paid half that percentage wise. All taxes combined is another story. But then again so is the capital gains if you include all taxes.

Re:perception

[TsuruchiBrian]

Ok, I'm convinced. We should go back to anarchy.

Re:perception

[TsuruchiBrian]

Some people are not capable of being self sufficient and some people are. Obviously the people who are not capable of being self sufficient are going to stay in a position of need by definition. In the other camp, I have seen numerous examples of the government helping people in times of need and empowering them to become self sufficient.

I've had many friends that have lost their jobs during the financial crisis. The unemployment benefits they collected helped them survive through that time.

I know lots of people that are helped by medical and medicare. My wife works in a hospital and sees this everyday.

I have a cousin who works for the state department in a program to build schools in Afghanistan.

Also, I've never really seen anyone's government aid being contingent on worshiping anybody. I can not say the same about religious charities I've seen.

Re:perception

[HornWumpus]

Your dependents are subsidized. It makes taxes easier for you, not harder.

Re:perception

[HornWumpus]

Dear rest of 'civilized' world.

Sucks to be you.

Re:perception

[Dahamma]

I never said Federal alone (CA state taxes are 9% @ 70k), and never said net taxes. Obviously we are talking about gross tax rate, because capital gains are income taxes as well, and thus subject to the same deductions. The clear fact is middle class wage earners are paying a much higher tax rate than wealthy investors. The rich have pretty much figured out how to defeat the "progressive" tax system.

Re:perception

[ComputersKai]

Tech doesn't necessarily dull people to the plight of less unfortunates, but it may distract from them. However, tech also makes such issues more prominent through media and the Internet.
Or it could be simply that people just think, when walking past a homeless person, that somebody else will give them the money, and everyone else happens to be thinking about the same thing, or thinking too much about their own troubles. But blaming tech isn't exactly the solution to the problem.

How long before

[fred911]

The cameras get traded for food...or worse.
   

Spare Change

[vortex2.71]

Yeah, but looking a homeless person in the eye and then giving them spare change is worse for them than donating to a charity on your computer since the spare change just goes to alcohol and drugs.

Re:Spare Change

[FudRucker]

the homeless have a right to drink some booze just like anybody else, maybe they have arthritis or a tooth ache and a little booze is the only way to find some temporary relief, so fuck you if you think having a home qualifies you to have a drink while being homeless disqualifies someone from having a a little temporary relief from the pain and struggles of life.

you might find yourself homeless someday, with no opportunities to improve your situation, then what?

Re:Spare Change

[BitZtream]

That may be true in some countries, but not in America.

In America you have to actively refuse help in order to be in continual pain or homeless.

I HAVE been poor, there is no excuse for hunger or suffering in the US, there are programs to help.

The problem is not that they are poor, its that they don't want to be helped, the reason for this could be any number of things from simple depression to severe mental disorders, but it IS NOT because help is unavailable.

A severe tooth abscess can be handled by the ER if its that bad and no publicly funded ER will turn down you down, its illegal. I know, I've been in EXACTLY that spot. And for reference, alcohol does pretty much nothing at all for tooth pain, you're far better off packing clove powder around it to numb it and treat the infection than drinking yourself silly, unless you drink enough to pass out ... in which case you have to stay drunk or the sobering up process will be FAR worse.

Re:Spare Change

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Hasn't marijuana been proven to be significantly less of a life destroyer (in terms of addictivity and physiological damage) than alcohol?

Re:Spare Change

[mythosaz]

...and in a couple more decades, we'll be done decriminalizing it.

Except in Alabama, because Jesus.

Re:Spare Change

[thegarbz]

The homeless have a right to drink. They do not have a right to empathy.

Tell me again why a homeless person (who qualifies for a healthcare card and thus free trips to the doctor and insanely discounted drugs in my country) would buy a $50 bottle of scotch every other day for his pain rather than spend $5 on drugs that will last them all week.

They can drink as much as they want. Just don't expect me to fund it with my lunch money.

With the amount of social security many countries doll out the only reason homeless people are homeless is because they want to be, not because they have no opportunities.

Re:Spare Change

[The123king]

Try being a single 20-40ish male in any first world country and try and get social housing, it's not gonna happen. Why? Because those houses are filled with single mums. Social security can't help everyone, and those who need it least (read: any male who's of working age) are unlikely to get social housing because of the huge demand for it. Of course there are ways and means of working your way back into housing, but if you've been made redundant, lost your house and most of your possesions, it's understandable that people will just be dragged into a pit of depression. If drink helps them get through their day (and most importantly, they don't act like an asshole when drunk), that's fine by me. I like my drink too, and if a homeless guy can get a 4-pack for the same price as i'd buy a pint at the pub, at least he's being more economical with his money than i am.

Re:Spare Change

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, but looking a homeless person in the eye and then giving them spare change is worse for them than donating to a charity on your computer since the spare change just goes to alcohol and drugs.

And the Charity has a lot of expenses that dilute the hell out of your "donation". I'll bet you get pissed off at the homeless people outside the McDonald's near me, and people buy them a meal. The ignorant bastards! That money could have gone to the CEO of the United Way!

Bite me, if I feel like giving the homeless dude some money, and they get their drink on, that's not what I wish, but it's their money then, not the CEO of your charity.

Re:Spare Change

[Frosty Piss]

100 percent. Been there, done that.

There are four basic types of "homeless" -

1. The mentally ill.
2. Drug users and alcoholics that don't want to "get off the street" enough to do something about their habits.
3. Homeless people who lived too close to the edge and became unemployed, drug addicts and alcoholics who want to change their lives.

And here is Seattle - "Nicklesville" ...

4. People who feel that society should support their homeless lifestyle.

There are in fact many services for all of these groups except Number Four. The rest, if they work hard, give up the heavy booze and drugs (there are in fact programs), they can lift themselves out of homelessness.

And don't fool yourself, Number Four exists in great numbers, dragging the "real" homeless down to their level.

Re:Spare Change

[fermion]

And this brings up charity versus philanthropy.

Charity is something you do because you believe you are wealthy enough to give someone money with no strings attached. This is what the salvation army wants you to do during Christmas. Not thinking that your money is going to be used to promote hate, teach people that science is bad, and generally ruin the minds of children. But many people still give because charity is good.

Then there is philanthropy. That occurs when people with money want to control the world. They decide what is best for everyone, and use their funds to make it happen. It is no better or worse than charity, just different.

Re:Spare Change

[WhatAreYouDoingHere]

And here is Seattle - "Nicklesville" ...

4. People who feel that society should support their homeless lifestyle.

I noticed a lot of that in Portland, when I lived up there. Maybe it's a northwest thing?

Re:Spare Change

[xous]

Drinking booze is a luxury. Smoking is a luxury. Coffee is a luxury. I forgo them when I can't afford them why shouldn't a homeless person?

There is no right to drink booze and certainly have no obligation to pay for their booze.

Have you ever tried to give a pan-handler food? They won't take it. If you offer to buy them food they'll just ask for the $. If you insist they'll come with you to ATM.

They aren't hungry. They can scavenge more than enough food from the garbage or get it free at a shelter. What they need is money to get the things they can't scavenge (booze, drugs). So when I walk by a bum after working an 100 hour week... the last thing I have is empathy.

Re:Spare Change

[Enigma2175]

Try being a single 20-40ish male in any first world country and try and get social housing, it's not gonna happen. Why? Because those houses are filled with single mums. Social security can't help everyone, and those who need it least (read: any male who's of working age) are unlikely to get social housing because of the huge demand for it. Of course there are ways and means of working your way back into housing, but if you've been made redundant, lost your house and most of your possesions, it's understandable that people will just be dragged into a pit of depression. If drink helps them get through their day (and most importantly, they don't act like an asshole when drunk), that's fine by me. I like my drink too, and if a homeless guy can get a 4-pack for the same price as i'd buy a pint at the pub, at least he's being more economical with his money than i am.

The issue is that the drinking then becomes a vicious circle, where they can't get a job because they are drunk all the time and so they drink to dull the pain of being unemployed and homeless. It can be a very difficult cycle to break, particularly when they become physically dependant on alcohol (or drugs).

Re:Spare Change

[Pfhorrest]

It's also a big thing in Santa Barbara, CA, which has streets full of "homeless" teens from wealthy families who voluntarily move out to the street to escape their "dictator" parents, and which is also apparently some kind of "homeless mecca" to which homeless people from other cities want to migrate because of great weather and sympathetic liberal-minded college kids stocked up on their rich parents' money.

Re:Spare Change

[David Jao]

Yes, I have tried to give food or buy them food. About half the time, they accept. In any case, even giving food is not foolproof. It might just mean that they now have more money to spend on booze since they don't have to spend as much of it on food.

Re:Spare Change

[drinkypoo]

Well, in Santa Cruz, CA, most of the homeless kids came from homes where they had been actively abused, often sexually. I went to school with some kids who lived in squats. They didn't move out of their houses and onto the streets because of a good home life.

Re:Spare Change

[Matheus]

Naw... it's everywhere. When I was going to school in Madison, WI you'd see this nice big ole Escalade drive up and lil street rats would pop out of Mommy and Daddy's car to the "Be home for dinner!" usual then go straight to a comfortable piece of concrete to spend the afternoon begging for change. Apparently it was cool (or just kept the kids busy and gave them candy/cig money so the parents supported it)

I hate the pretend poor... some people kids geez!

Re:Spare Change

[houghi]

1. The mentally ill.

3. Homeless people who lived too close to the edge and became unemployed

How can you be ok with the first group to exist as homeless? It is as if you are saying "You are not able tro be a productive part of any company, so fuck you."
The other is also a group that should not be homeless. They are willing to get help and solve their issues. The same applies as above.

I live in Belgium and when I see somebody who is begging (not even sure if he is homeless) I know it is because of his or her own choice. And this includes addicts. If you WANT to quit, you wil get help.

If you are begging, to me it means there is some reason that you are not getting enough support (not even thinking about scammers). I am not giving you money, because you don't agree with the rules.

If people who work need extra help (Wallmart) how bad can it be for the rest?

Re:Spare Change

[thegarbz]

Hmmm single and 20-40 would qualify for healthcare card, new start allowance, and food coupons even if I didn't have public housing. Of interest is that we have a rental property we are currently tenanting with jobless person who is in the exact predicament you're describing. Male, 35, no job, no savings, yet never behind on his rent and as far as I know they are still alive. Now things may be different in America where people are genuinely in a bad place, but there's no excuse for it in many countries.

It's a free world. If you want to drink yourself to death on the street go for it. You have every opportunity including free counselling sessions to break out of your cycle. Just don't expect me to drop another dollar in your empty grande starbucks cup.

Re:Spare Change

[strikethree]

In America you have to actively refuse help in order to be in continual pain or homeless.

Whoah there cowboy. I am unsure what country you are from but as an American young white homeless male without any felonies, it was impossible to get any help whatsoever. Granted, that was at least a quarter of a century ago but I doubt things have changed that much concerning the homeless.

If I were a felon, there were programs. If I were a woman, there were programs. If I was a minority, there were programs. If I were elderly, there were programs. I was none of those. There were no programs for me. So I starved and froze. Of course, it was not much different than when I actually had a job. I worked 6 days a week but could not really afford food or heat after rent was paid off.

A severe tooth abscess can be handled by the ER if its that bad and no publicly funded ER will turn down you down

Yeah, except that if you ever get a job, your wages will be garnished until the overinflated ER prices are paid off... which means that you pay the ER off before you can start paying for rent and clothes and such. Not very easy to get out of the homeless cycle there.

Re:Spare Change

[strikethree]

3. Homeless people who lived too close to the edge and became unemployed

Yeah, much of America is on that fine line right now. It must be nice to be nowhere near that line.

Actually, I am not near that line right now but I have been there several times in my life. Life in America is brutal... but in a way, it kind of should be; otherwise, a very large group of people would just sit around and wait for food and shelter to be given to them. Very few people seem to have "the hunter instinct" nowadays.

Which "Homeless?"

[mythosaz]

Will it be one of the part-time homeless who make a full days' wage standing a few hours on the corner and then retreating to their suburban home because they have a juicy location?

Will it be a "gutterpunk" who has chosen homelessness as his lifestyle - playing the ukulele on "college" street between heroin injections?

[Panhandling, apparently, nets about $8/hour, depending on where you live -- more than enough if you aspire to only shoot up and go back to your crappy hotel after a few hours.]

...or will it be the genuinely if-only-I-could-bootstrap-myself homeless, the mentally ill, or someone who's on the streets because they're out of options?

Re:Which "Homeless?"

[HornWumpus]

Panhandling nets a LOT more then that. But they have to be tough to keep the good spots or a stronger bum will come along and take their panhandling spot.

Panhandling with a borrowed baby nets NY lawyer money. There was one spot in sac where they shared a baby and pan-handled all day until CPS put a stop to it.

Re:Which "Homeless?"

[mythosaz]

Well sure. There are some great corners out there, but those panhandlers are the top of the panhandling food chain. We've all seen that expose where they follow a panhandler home in his BMW to the suburbs.

Most though... ...they make about $8/hr (tax free - or at least unreported). That's enough to score a room to share with your other gutterpunk friends and score some more heroin.

I can see this

[mysidia]

which is stopping people feel sympathy towards people living on the street as it's easier to have 'less feelings when you're typing something' than looking at them in the eye"

If you are not looking them in the eye, then you are not experiencing the Identifiable Victim effect.

Wrong, it's not the tech

[cbybear]

It's having to step over trash strewn everywhere around refuse cans. It's having to avoid unknown streams down the sidewalk and then getting a lung-full of the reek of old urine. It's the constant begging. That is why people are less empathetic. After years of this and nothing working, you have to ignore it or go crazy with the constant assault.

Re:Wrong, it's not the tech

[drinkypoo]

For thousands of years, people have been getting mad at the beggars instead of those who profit from and thus are motivated to maintain the status quo that creates them, and indeed, depends on economic conditions which produce them. After thousands of years of this and nothing working, those who learn the lessons of history are doomed to stand around and watch everyone else repeat it.

Re:Wrong, it's not the tech

[cbybear]

San Francisco has tons of programs to help less fortunate people. So I don't buy the argument that we are ignoring history and repeating it. We have people who just don't want to work. Go spend time near Haight-Ashbury. See young kids, not interested in actually contributing to society, instead burning bags of shit in the middle of the street. This is an otherwise normal neighborhood except for proximity to Golden Gate Park, which is now a haven for ne'er-do-wells who then prey upon tourists and the people that live in the Haight. That is just one instance of what we deal with in San Francisco. And we don't have epic blizzards to reset things every year.

Re:Wrong, it's not the tech

[phorm]

maintain the status quo that creates them

And what is that 'status quo'

Yes, there are definitely situations widening the rich/poor gap, but a lot of people I see on the streets are for reasons already mentioned by others: drugs, alcohol, or (in the summer) because they want to be *free*

Seriously, in summer we get a flood of what are often referred to as "dog people." Those that are accompanied by a canine companion who hitch-hike across the country, begging their way for food and transportation (as well as other substances where available). They aren't looking for work. They don't want to be part of the "system"

Re:Wrong, it's not the tech

[HornWumpus]

I'm thinking there are rural desert Utah counties they can piss in, no problem.

Helping the poor

[SuperKendall]

In San Francisco you "have to see the poor" daily as well. Hows that working out for them?

The trouble with the homeless is that they are not just poor, there are usually multiple problems at work including mental issues... so seeing them and giving them money is usually not helping much.

If you really want to help the poor I suggest going to Modest Needs, that is the best place I've found to help the truly poor directly before they fall off the bottom rung of the ladder.

Re:Helping the poor

[gmack]

Actually it's worse than that, by giving them money you are making them comfortable in their current state and that keeps them from getting the actual help they need.

Re:Helping the poor

[Kjella]

Here in Norway I have the impression that it's only two main groups. One is Romani that arrive through the EU agreement, basically the kind who come with no rights, no education, no work history, no nothing and the only thing they're here for is to beg, steal and live off various programs that provide shelter and food for the homeless while leaving a trail of littering and vandalism in their wake. And yes, I don't mind stigmatizing the whole group because 68 of 69 beggars in a random sweep of beggars had a criminal record. And despite a million attempts to integrate them, they have no intention of ever becoming productive members of society and raise their children just like them to embrace their nomadic and parasitic lifestyle. Many of the children aren't enrolled in primary/secondary education at all and the few who are absent more than 1/3rd of the time. They also have more than a few cultural issues with suckers who work all day for an honest wage, why anyone would give them money is incomprehensible to me.

The other big, big group is drug/alcohol addicts, but there are hospices and such that will give them shelter and food if they don't show up high as a kite. The truly homeless are the ones who can't keep their drug use outside the shelter, but even those get winter sleeping bags so they don't freeze to death on the streets. They're not trying to hustle you for money in order to eat or drink or put clothes on their backs or a roof over their heads, it's to feed their habit. It's almost a protection racket, we're addicts and we will find the money to get our kick so you can either throw a few bucks in our cup or we'll get desperate and you really don't want us to get desperate. If you give them anything nice they'll probably sell it for the money anyway, you can give them money but it's not going to lead to anything positive. The rest are mostly taken care of, if you just have mental or money problems you won't be the streets and you won't have to beg for a living.

Re:Helping the poor

[amiga3D]

Even though I know you are right I find it difficult to not hand out money. I see these people and almost invariably I end up giving them 5 bucks. It's not much to me and they seem happy to get it.

Re:Helping the poor

[jopsen]

The rest are mostly taken care of, if you just have mental or money problems you won't be the streets and you won't have to beg for a living.

In Norway :)
I recently moved from Denmark to San Francisco... And whilst I do see many homeless people with mental issues, I also hear that there is not treatment facilities available.

Many homeless, here also looks like they are feeding an abuse. But I certainly also see homeless people who doesn't look like drug addicts or have mental issues.

Re:Helping the poor

[AlphaWolf_HK]

The last time I was being panhandled, it was by some lady who was smoking cigarettes at the time she was asking me for money. I said I didn't have any (which is true; I only carry a credit card and rarely have cash) but even if I did, there's no way I am going to give any to somebody who is likely to just buy cigarettes with it. If they want food, that is already easy to get for free (the shelters and churches literally just give it away.) If they need clothing, same thing.

When I think about it, cigarettes and/or booze are the only thing they actually need money for. All of the bare essentials are available at no cost.

Re:Helping the poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyways, I've always wondered how god-fearing republicans can choose to not the help poor people, and then pretend they're doing the lords work.

I'll assume that you're honestly curious and not simply being sarcastic. You're no doubt aware of the parables of Jesus, the Good Samaritan and all of that, but what not as many people hear is this:

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

2 Thessalonians 3:10

There are people out there with genuine issues who need help and there are many faith based groups and non profits that can and do help them but there are also many who don't want help other than to enable their lifestyle of getting high and not working. It's those type of persons that Paul was writing about in his second letter to the early Christians living in the ancient city of Thessaloniki. This is not just a modern problem you see.

Re:Helping the poor

[Dahamma]

Thank Ronald Reagan for that. He basically killed spending for mental health (and put it all into the military, yay) which resulted in hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people being released from hospitals and institutions and onto the street. It's telling that Republicans think of Reagan as their best president in the last 50 years when honestly his policies are in fact the origin of much of the Federal deficit, health care disasters, and income inequality issues we see in the US today.

They think he "ended the Cold War." But basically he outspent the Soviet Union in the short term by jeopardizing the future of the US in the long term. Now ironically, in the current geopolitical situation China is dominating monetary and human capital and Russia doesn't have the untenable debt and has a huge income source from recent oil and gas exploration, so they may end up "winning" in the long run after all.

Re:Helping the poor

[erikkemperman]

... due to the simple fact that homeless want to live in the manner they do because it is easier or even a relief for them, having said that when you see what they go thru and how they try to live it in fact not easy at all.

How does the second part of that sentence not make you reconsider your assertion in the first?

I think you are right that might possibly be a very small fraction who actually do prefer the "vagabond" lifestyle, despite the obvious and many hardships. But to make a blanket statement that *all* homeless are in that situation as a matter of choice seems wildly inaccurate to me.

As to your analog about criminals, isn't it also quite likely that recidivism is largely due to the many bariers to any chance of building up a normal life post-incarceration, which is to say after formally having done their time?

Re:Helping the poor

[Chrisq]

How does the second part of that sentence not make you reconsider your assertion in the first?

I think you are right that might possibly be a very small fraction who actually do prefer the "vagabond" lifestyle, despite the obvious and many hardships. But to make a blanket statement that *all* homeless are in that situation as a matter of choice seems wildly inaccurate to me.

When I was young before the welfare state was dismantled and anyone in need had to be homed by law I remember seeing a couple of homeless. They lived outside in makeshift tents in the woods on the edge of town. I remember they seemed happy. Now I see hundreds of homeless people, mainly in cities and looking unhappy. I would guess based on this that maybe 1% choose to live homeless, and much fewer than this do in cities

Re:Helping the poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyways, I've always wondered how god-fearing republicans can choose to not the help poor people, and then pretend they're doing the lords work.

My understanding is that that's where charity (i.e., churches preferably) comes in, not the government. (Disclosure: I lean left, am non-religious, and help people because they need help.)

Re:Helping the poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Very simple, really. Tithe at church; vote against Government handouts. America is the most charitable nation in the world*, we just don't let our Government do it.

*http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html

Re:Helping the poor

[Vyse of Arcadia]

I think it bugs me more that you hear all about programs and charities to give aid to the poor in other countries, but you don't see the government handing out care packages to the homeless in the US.

Maybe it's just not as widely publicized, but I don't think that's the case.

Re:Helping the poor

[s0nicfreak]

Having been homeless before, I saw that there are multiple types of homeless people;

There are the type that are thought of when you think of "homeless people" - the panhandlers, the bagladies, the "hobos." Either they choose to live this way, or their mental or addiction problems are so severe that they can not get out of it.

Then there are the ones you would never know are homeless. They are clean, and averagely or well dressed. They are either trying to get out of homelessness, or they truly prefer to not pay bills and a mortgage and such... or they have an addiction which forces them to spend their bill money on drugs, but it's under control just enough that they keep themselves looking good and able to do their job.

I would not presume which type of homeless person someone is just by looking at them.

Whatever type they are, though, they have to deal with people. Pretty much constantly. It's essential to survival; finding where you can eat and sleep each day, ensuring another homeless person isn't going to stab you, etc. You have to be friendly with other homeless people, the cops, and people at businesses around you.

Though yes they are free from paying most bills, and (some are) free from the rat race, and there IS some joy in that... the grass is always greener and all that. Having lived both ways I will say I certainly would not have wanted to be searching for a shelter with an open bed in the -40 degree weather we had this winter. And I much prefer stressing about bills to stressing about if I'm going to eat today.

The people that are homeless because they just prefer to not pay bills are definitely the minority. It's much more comfortable to get/build a house and live off-grid, where you'd have the added bonus of not needing to deal with people if you choose. If you want the freedom of being a vagabond, it's much more comfortable to get an RV than to be homeless. I would say that the majority of people that refuse to go back to the normals, do so because they prefer doing drugs to being normal. And there's nothing wrong with that imo (as long as they aren't stealing, robbing etc. to get those drugs); I'm not going to judge nor try to stop them from choosing that, so why judge me for looking at my phone instead of them?

(Anyway, the ones that truly want/need help aren't going to ask ME for it if I'd just look away from my phone. They need long-term help, not the short term help of me giving them a few bucks. So there isn't much I can do for them, except maybe use my phone to google some resources for them. They probably know where the nearest library is and can google it themselves, anyway.)

Re:Helping the poor

[gmack]

You're wrong.

Once they're comfortable in their current state they can work on improving it. You can't focus on learning new skills or searching for a job if you have to find a blanket for tonight or you'll freeze to death. Almost everyone isn't going to hire a homeless bum, so they need enough stuff to make themselves not look homeless. They get those things as handouts on the street, from picking through the trash, or from robbing people.

The problem is that when we give them money for begging, they go use that money for a little bit of food and a whole lot of whatever it is they are self medicating with. Change is uncomfortable and doubly so for someone who is a substance abuser. There are charities who help people who want to get off the street and your money is much better spent there since they can help more effectively by providing food, clean clothing, a place to stay and help for whatever emotional problems or mental illness that made them end up on the streets to begin with.

Re:Helping the poor

[jopsen]

You must be kidding me. San Francisco has more resources for homeless people than any other US city. Food, shelter (Tenderloin), treatment, charity. That's why they flock here. It's like we're asking for it. And indeed, people voluntarily come, or get sent by other cities to come here. Haven't you had enough of it?

That's possible, by read the article... the guy is trying to get off the street...


So hypothetical, if you were kicked out tomorrow, without any possessions other than a blanket and your back account, assets etc. was gone... How would you get on top again?
There is 9k homeless in sf 1k shelters.. How do make yourself representable so you can apply for an unskilled job? How do you keep a room, apartment anything for 10 USD/hour? Will you be better off in another city and can you risk moving? How do you move?

Re:Um no

[mythosaz]

...but you see, I'm an honest working man, driving home to see my family, and I only need 73 more cents to buy the part I need for my car, and I'll be on my way.

Re:plastic

[mythosaz]

Also fewer and fewer people know the difference between less and fewer.

Strange..

[The123king]

As someone who walks around with earphones in most of the time, believe it or not, it makes me more empathetic to the homeless.Nothing says "disposable income" more than having headphones, and as such, i'm very self-conscious about that fact. Instead of aimlessly walking on by when a homesless guy tries to chat or ask for money, i'll often stop, have a chat, and give them my spare change. Sure, they might spend it on Special Brew or hard cider, but at least they'll spend all of my change on getting though their day.

Only 30% of the money you put in collection boxes actually goes to doing charitable work, the rest is spent on administrative costs, advertising, and other costs. When I give change to a homeless guy, i know that 100% of my money is going to do that homeless guy some good, and there's nothing like the feeling of making someone's day. Put that money into a collection box, and only 30% is going to go to good causes, and you'll probably never meet the guy who's day you made.

All in all, i believe charity should start at home. And for the people who get my spare change, a home is something they can only dream about.

Re:Strange..

[mythosaz]

When I give change to a homeless guy, i know that 100% of my money is going to do that homeless guy some good...

Well, 100% of it goes to the homeless guy, but based on your own description, it sounds like none of it does any good.

At least the 30% in the collection box might go to permanent solutions, halfway houses, transition solutions, job training and education, etc.

Re:Strange..

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, nothing says disposable income like smoking. Ear phones are nothing in comparison, unless you've got them plugged into one of those diamond encrusted bling phones. I can't afford to smoke, there's no way I'm going to give money to someone who can.

Many of the genuinely homeless are that way because they have addictions or other mental disorders that make them waste money on drugs or other bad decisions. If you want to help, vote for social treatment and rehabilitation programs. If you can't do that, donate to a decent charity that has a low administrative overhead.

Re:Strange..

[number17]

I think giving money to homeless and charity don't do enough to prevent this in the first place. I would rather my money go towards things like health care or programs that help the struggling before they become homeless.

Re:Strange..

[mythosaz]

Actually nothing says, "I'm stupid" like smoking.

I've never, ever, been shocked to see a homeless man smoking a cigarette. No money for a razor and shampoo again today, but hey, American Spirit!

Heroin I understand. :/

Re:Strange..

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this widespread assumption that simply giving poor people money somehow won't work. It's not a new idea, and in certain instances I'm sure it's true.

But it's not well-supported in the general case. A lot of good can be done simply by giving people who need money access to money. As it turns out most people are perfectly capable of determining what they need most and making efficient use of the resources available to them. Studies suggest that spending on alcohol, gambling, etc. do not increase significantly when poor people are given money, and in reasonably functioning economies longitudinal studies suggest that even small, one-time grants can result in significant long-term improvements in quality of life.

Re:Strange..

[The123king]

As a smoker, i know the urge and desire for a cigarette, and when you cannot afford them, it's a really really tough time. In fact, most of the time, if you give a homeless guy a cigarette, they'll be more glad of that than a handful of change. There is nothing worse than watching a homeless guy sift through cigarette butt in the gutter because he can't afford to buy their own, so i like to help out in that way too.

And sure, many of the genuinely homeless do have drug habits, mental disorders and such, but that doesn't mean we should marginalise them for it. Voting for social housing, rehabilitation and retraining is great and all, but it still doesn't buy that guy a sandwich. He's still got to eat, and by giving him a few coins, he can go buy a fresh sandwich instead of looking for one in the dumpster.

Re:Strange..

[mythosaz]

An open letter to you and the smoking homeless:

Stop smoking, idiot.

Yours in FSM,
mythosaz

Re:Strange..

[The123king]

i appreciate your concern, and i know how unhealthy it is, but if i wanted to quit, i would. Smoking is a lifestyle choice, and like millions of other around the world, i made the choice. I'm not advocating it, and if you've never smoked, i wouldn't recommend starting now. But

Regardless of your view on tobacco, i respect it. but i'd also like you to respect my choice to smoke.

Re:Strange..

[davester666]

you both are talking absolutes.

group one: some poor people, if given access to more money, to 'kickstart' them so to speak, would be able to at least better attempt to reintegrate into 'regular' society, as in get a job, pay bills, send kids to school, etc...

group two: other poor people, if given access to more money, would just 'waste' it on short-term wants, such as drugs, partying, even being generous and giving it away to others [I know people who were working at decent jobs, enough to support themselves, but semi-regularly give away so much of the money they earn that they had to borrow to support themselves].

and just as a gross generalization, democrats would rather give at least some from group two money to try to give everybody from group one a chance, while republicans would rather give nobody any money from the gov't, and have both groups depend on handouts from private charities.

Re:Strange..

[ceoyoyo]

Giving him change to buy cigarettes or alcohol with doesn't help him eat either. Neither does giving him cigarettes to feed his addiction. You can afford to be an addict. He can't.

Donating (or volunteering) at the local soup kitchen, THAT helps him eat.

Re:Strange..

[The123king]

I'm british, what's a healthcare bill?

I pay a large amount of tax on my smokes, (16.5% on top of the 20% VAT!) and that extra excise duty "apparently" goes towards funding the NHS because of the increased pressure smoking-related illnesses put on the NHS. But i don't complain, because anyone, from the homeless to the queen will (should) get the same standard of healthcare. I've not needed the services of the NHS since i started smoking, so for the most part, my taxes have gone to paying for someone elses emphysema and not mine.

Re:Strange..

[Merls the Sneaky]

Smoking is more addictive than heroin.

Re:Strange..

[Enigma2175]

I'm british, what's a healthcare bill?

I pay a large amount of tax on my smokes, (16.5% on top of the 20% VAT!) and that extra excise duty "apparently" goes towards funding the NHS because of the increased pressure smoking-related illnesses put on the NHS. But i don't complain, because anyone, from the homeless to the queen will (should) get the same standard of healthcare. I've not needed the services of the NHS since i started smoking, so for the most part, my taxes have gone to paying for someone elses emphysema and not mine.

Not to mention the fact that smokers statistically have a lower lifetime healthcare cost than non-smokers, because they tend to die early and lung cancer kills quickly. If you want a scapegoat Mr. Coward, how about obesity? Obesity is a lifestyle choice that costs you a LOT more in healthcare dollars than smokers. Go troll some fat people for a while and leave the smokers alone.

Re:Strange..

[The123king]

You should be more worried about the air pollution from motor vehicles than my second-hand smoke.

I smoke outside in open air, so second-hand smoke should not be a problem. I don't smoke in front of children and i especially don't blow it into peoples faces. I also try not to smoke near restaurants or other places selling food, as there's nothing less appetising than getting a nose full of someone elses cigarette, so i sympathise with you there. But i don't see anyone giving smokers "priority" over anything in public spaces. Most european countries have introduced indoor smoking bans (including the UK, my home country), so the only place to smoke is outside anyway. And most establishments either have an outdoor smoking area, or a pot of some sort outside for cigarette litter.

Re:Strange..

[Kielistic]

I could quit any time I wanted to- I just really want to smoke. It's not like it's addictive or anything.

You do realize how cliche it is for a smoker to say "I could quit if I wanted to", right?

You have every right to smoke if you want to but don't try to kid yourself that you aren't suffering from a massive addiction.

Re:Strange..

[David Jao]

There are lots of things that aren't actually illegal but are nevertheless considered socially unacceptable. I would be happy to see public smoking relegated to this category. For example, it's not actually illegal to walk up to a total stranger and start verbally abusing them, nor is it directly harmful to the victim's health, but such actions are highly frowned upon by society and for good reason.

Re:Strange..

[HornWumpus]

Funny how government money gives people a chance, but private money makes them dependent.

I think the problem is with your thought processes.

The long term homeless poor, as opposed to the poor, are almost entirely made up of group #2.

Re:Strange..

[HornWumpus]

Lower lifetime tax/insurance revenue as well. Lower costs are only half the picture.

Re:Strange..

[The123king]

Waaaay to rephrase my comment jackass.

What i meant is "i dont want to quit", not "i could quit if i wanted to". I know i've got an addiction and i know it's unhealthy, but simply put, i like smoking. I'm not trying to kid myself anything, i know i'm an addict. But trust me, nothing says "good morning!" like a nice hot cup of coffee and a cigarette "Al Fresco" in the middle of a busy city.

And for me, and many many others, smoking helps me socialise. You'd be suprised the folks you meet who need a smoke, or a lighter. People you'd normally never talk to, such as the homeless, chavs, barmaids, bouncers, your first girlfriends, etc etc. For me, at least, smoking has done more good than harm for my social and sex lives.

Re:Strange..

[Enigma2175]

Lower lifetime tax/insurance revenue as well. Lower costs are only half the picture.

How's that? At least in the US, the people who have socialized medicine are the elderly and disabled who are not paying into that system. If it is private insurance then smokers pay the same amount as their co-workers (or in the case of my company, they pay MORE than their co-workers). Usually, smoking doesn't kill you until you are near the age when you stop paying taxes and stop paying for your own healthcare (at least in my country), so how do smokers manage to pay in less than non-smokers?

Re:Strange..

[OneAhead]

Not to mention the fact that smokers statistically have a lower lifetime healthcare cost than non-smokers, because they tend to die early and lung cancer kills quickly.

That used to be true about 20 years ago. Welcome to the 21st century! Nowadays, through the administration of expensive cancer treatment, they can keep them alive long enough on average to readily ramp up a higher-that average lifetime healthcare cost even if they were healthy most of their life. Or why did you think US health insurance companies and many governments in Europe suddenly started campaigning aggressively against smoking roughly 10-15 years ago?

Re:Strange..

[David Jao]

If you live totally off the grid then I respect your position entirely. However, without knowing you, I can probably safely assume that this is not the case. It's probably highly likely that you rely on pollution-causing motor vehicles to deliver essential goods (food, clothing, construction materials, etc.) to maintain your life or at least your standard of living. If you benefit from motor vehicles in this way, then forswearing them is not a noble act. It's just pure hypocrisy.

Re:Strange..

[phorm]

When I give change to a homeless guy, i know that 100% of my money is going to do that homeless guy some good

Been burned by this too many times to make such an assumption. One guy I gave some money, then watched him go into the grocery store aaannd... buy scratch (lottery) tickets.

Another guy, I bought him lunch figuring that way I knew the money wasn't going towards drugs/alcohol. Felt it had done some good until I saw him finish the sandwich and go out to meet his wife/partner and the SHOPPING CART FULL OF BOOZE they had blown their own money on.

That's why I don't give anymore - or at least rarely - not because of any cellphone.

Re:Strange..

[HornWumpus]

Smokers don't start dying at 65. A large part of heart disease is smoking related, which starts killing in real numbers at about 40.

Re:Strange..

[RespekMyAthorati]

Only 30% of the money you put in collection boxes actually goes to doing charitable work

Not with the Salvation Army:it's more like 80%.

Tech is a refuge

[Lije Baley]

We're being driven from our humanity by various forms of corruption in civilization, and technology is helping us escape...inward.

Another city, perhaps?

[The Grim Reefer]

Perhaps part of the problem is that San Francisco is overloaded with homeless. So people become desensitized to the plight of the homeless there. Obviously this is pure speculation on my part. But I know that hospitals from other areas, and even other states bus their mentally ill to San Francisco

Re:Another city, perhaps?

[mythosaz]

That headline and your a ref= are astonishingly sensationalist.

..the Sacramento Bee newspaper reported that hospital staff had given as many as 1,500 patients one-way bus tickets to California and 46 other states between 2008 and 2013.

Over 5-6 years, Nevada offered bus tickets (home?) to former mental patients without providing good enough post-care documentation for them. They went to 47 of the 47 possible states you can take a bus to without a passport. They went at a rate of 250 a year, and, in total 24 of them ended up in SF over those 5-6 years.

There's no direct evidence that those 24 ended up homeless, or were even homeless! ...just that the some of them then availed themselves of state medical care and shelter.

In summary -- liar, liar, pants on fire.

Re:Another city, perhaps?

[The Grim Reefer]

Regardless of how they got there, it's a very visible and obvious problem in San Francisco. While there are other cities in the US that have higher homeless populations, SF is often sited as the on with the most visible and obvious population. Which was my entire point to begin with.

Reality has an unfavorable bias?

[supernova87a]

Maybe, just maybe, showing how many resources and $ are being spent to give homeless people options, especially in San Francisco, only to have that money pissed away and people still soiling our streets and public transport systems, tends to decrease how sympathetic you feel towards the chronically homeless?

Re:plastic

[ceoyoyo]

People are continuous, you insensitive clod!

good info

[globaljustin]

thanks for the link!

and yes, I see your point about SF today...

i have empathy for the homeless

[FudRucker]

but there are many more homeless than i can afford to feed or give money to, as a matter of fact i may end up being homeless myself someday. who is going to give me something to eat or a few dollars so i can have an occasional pint of whiskey

Where's the raw data

[viperidaenz]

How many homeless volunteers took off with the camera and sold it to buy booze?

Re:Where's the raw data

[HornWumpus]

I could use a discounted GoPro. Where are they doing this again?

What?

[onproton]

Let's be honest, people rarely even think about the homeless until they are looking them in the eye.

And last generation it was rock music...

[Qzukk]

"And just for fun, he says 'Get a job'"

That's just the way it is, some things will never change.

Re:Of course

[Sentrion]

But they are nowhere near as bad as those passive-aggressive homeless folks that just sleep quietly on a park bench. I can't stand how they dig through trash cans looking for food or scrap metal - right in front of me! I can tell they do it just to put me through a guilt trip in an attempt to trick me into offering them some kind of help. What nerve!

What really makes me mad though is when I'm feeding pigeons at the park and some homeless guy starts picking up and eating the crumbs that were meant for the pigeons. Homeless people in the park these days just take all of the fun out of enjoying open space that my taxes pay for.

Define homeless....

[Lumpy]

The hustling scammers, the druggies and drunks, the mentially ill, or the real homeless that are down on their luck and actually trying?

Because the first two I ignore completely. The mentially Ill I feel really bad for, and the onesthatare really down on their luck are not on the street corners hustling for money. Those people are helped by my donations to homeless shelters and to women and children shelters.

The fake hustler that is claiming they are a veteran standing there with a sign? Or the one guy I see push his wheel chair up to the corner then get in it with his hand out? they can stuff it.

Re:Define homeless....

[Prune]

Many of "the druggies and drunks" are hardly more responsible for their lot than the mentally ill, and the two categories of problems are highly related. Getting out of addiction is not simply a matter of willpower, and there are many factors that predispose people to end up stuck in those habits that are largely outside of their control. You're being too judgmental.

Re:Define homeless....

[drinkypoo]

The hustling scammers, the druggies and drunks, the mentially ill, or the real homeless that are down on their luck and actually trying?

All of those people are down on their luck, even the scammers. They were emotionally and/or socially undernourished, and they can't see any better way to live than a lifestyle which will lead to a sad and pathetic retirement, if any. The druggies and drunks are addicts, they're caught in the grip of something they can't get away from. It's not enviable.

Those people are helped by my donations to homeless shelters and to women and children shelters.

I hope your local shelters are actually good places. Often they are staffed with serious assholes. You wouldn't think that was possible. It is.

Re:Define homeless....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me speak to a druggie. My son has a big chip on his shoulder and thinks he is gods gift to music. Working part time jobs after high school he was fired for cause in every case because he thought he was better than all that and knew better than the people asking him to do what he was paid for. He had a partial ride scholarship to a local university, but the teacher he had did not specialize in his instrument, so THEY were not giving him what he deserved. (Let's just take a C in high school because if my teachers are just there to punch a time clock, why should I bother giving them any of my time?) ((Yeah, I know, I told him HE was the only one he was hurting, but we already established he is not listening to others right?))

So he goes to major in music and drops out early with a degree in marijuana and any other home made, synthetic or abusable drug he can get his hands on. Takes the car I gave him to get to college and work, steals his sisters savings, and skips town. He lives in his car until its impounded, then he lives on the streets in Houston TX. Apparently those nice friendly drugs and druggies on the street are not just asking for handouts, they can be vicious and territorial. After getting hunted down and mugged/stabbed by a group of them, he came to in a parking garage and refused help from a police officer because They don't care either.

After living this life style, my parents took him in to try and give him some help. He told his sob story to their local church and they reached out to the nearby university to get him a full ride scholarship. But his drug habit was still in full swing, and THEY started messing with his stuff and expecting him to go to school, to try and get a job, help out. As it would happen, both my parents were in the hospital. Step mom for cancer, my dad getting more of his foot cut off due to diabetes. Step sister comes home and finds my son absconding with my dad's stereo to pawn it for drugs. I thought I would never be able to forgive him for this, but cancer took my step mom, and my father followed the next day. I know he has to live with what he did to them, when they were only trying to help.

So they kicked him out. The father of a girl who's life he was ruining chased him out of town on a Greyhound bus back to "home".

During this time he spent some time in a hospital, which took him in because he was "suicidal", and for a time he really liked the prescriptions they were giving him. But when a doctor wised up and changed it on him, he miraculously felt better and checked himself out. He also spent time at a local rescue program, where the staff was all former druggies who just wanted to lord their position over him.

When he came home, he told us he was working a warehouse job, still on marijuana, but working hard and going to pay his sister back, plus buy an instrument and get into a better living situation. Two months later, despite 50-60 hours a week of work, we get the call that he was fired because there was an "accident" at work. It was not his fault, it was stupid, but he refused a drug test.. And he had not eaten in 4 days, because ALL of the money he had been "saving" had really gone to his drug habit.

Every step of the way, he has had support, family to help him, and more importantly the talent and ability to be successful. In every case, it was his choice, his pride, and his belief that he could handle the drugs because he was better than the other addicts. So I don't buy your "Hardly more responsible for their lot". They know, they chose to disbelieve, and they commit crimes to keep it going.

For those who still care to keep reading, he is currently back at home for real. We spent three months keeping him away from opportunities to get drugs. (And learned some lessons from the empty spray varnish can, the empty nutmeg in the spice cabinet, the empty poppy seeds....) Now I am going through the same process we went through after high school. Get him a job, get his fines paid off, get him a license, help him save for a car. And this is a 24 year old man who is perfectly CAPABLE of taking care of himself.

I don't think it's technology

[rsilvergun]

I think it's 30 years of declining wages. Half of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck. We're too busy trying to keep ourselves afloat to worry about anyone else, which is probably the whole point.... Keeps us at each other's throats :(.

Re:I don't think it's technology

[Prune]

Combine this with trends like the skyrocketing investment into robotics by companies like Google, and one starts wondering if poor people are about to become obsolete.

Re:I don't think it's technology

[TheSync]

On the other hand we have had 30 years of increasing real compensation per hour. More compensation is going into pre-tax benefits rather than wages.

Re:I don't think it's technology

[imthesponge]

Benefits that people working 2 or 3 part-time jobs don't get.

Re:I don't think it's technology

[TheSync]

Benefits that people working 2 or 3 part-time jobs don't get.

Even for employees without much in the way of the way of health insurance, life insurance, or disability insurance pre-tax compensation, employers still need to pay their part of Social Security & Medicare, Federal unemployment insurance, state unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance as part of total hourly compensation.

Across all workers, the cost of legally required benefits is actually as much as the total cost of employer-provided health insurance. See this breakdown for more info.

What is the point of empathy though?

[Karmashock]

Look, what homeless people need is to not be homeless.

And there are various ways of dealing with that.

1. Rehabilitate them if possible. A lot of them can't be but some can.

2. Get them off the streets and into institutions.

3. Consider alternative social arrangements we could create... communities apart from society that are more healthy for homeless people then our current one.

4. etc...

There is no cure for what causes homelessness but there are probably better ways to deal with it then just letting them shamble around towns begging for money.

Empathy is not really the issue here. We have a lot of empathy. We just don't want to spend money enabling bad choices.

Are they spending the money they get begging on booze, drugs, etc? Well then why would we give them money? Are there lots of free shelters that offer food, clothing, and medical aid? Yes.

Then where is the lack of empathy?

What we are rather is beaten down and apathetic about the situation because we don't think we can do anything. But that doesn't mean we don't feel. It means we've given up.

Its ache that hurts every day and we put up with it.

There are better ways to deal with it but it involves thinking outside the box.

Re:What is the point of empathy though?

[Simulant]

Good luck getting people like this guy to watch that video....

Re:plastic

[Sentrion]

Hold on - are you saying the government will PAY you to be homeless? Or is it just one of those programs that is only available in blue states? Do you just have to be homeless to qualify, or do you also have to be an honorably discharged disabled vet with minor children?

Re:GoPro makes dubious claim...

[PsychoSlashDot]

No, no, you missed it... a homeless guy makes a dubious claim. Seriously, a guy who has been homeless for six years is the basis for this thing, with him concluding that technology is desensitizing non-homeless.

It's an even bigger chunk of turd than you thought. This guy isn't a long-time homeless person who might plausibly be able to compare today to the golden yesteryear of homelessness. He doesn't provide anything even resembling evidence, just "you know, e-mail makes people lose their empathy".

I call bullshit. Being homeless makes you notice that people are today - and always have been - insensitive to the plight of the homeless, on average. This dude just never noticed how homeless are treated six years ago when he had a mother, a wife, a house, and a rip-roaring drug habit.

Nope, it's the homeless

[russotto]

There's one guy who is constantly begging on the New Jersey Transit trains in Penn Station NYC, he claims he just needs a few bucks for a ticket to get home (common scam actually, this guy is just more regular than most). Of course he's full of shit, as another guy on my car proved by offering him a ticket to where he wanted to go, and when he refused it, lit into him about how he was a pathetic loser who was making his race look bad.

Then there's the "Why Lie, I Need a Beer" guy also in Penn Station NYC. Though I think he's actually not homeless at all but a cop of some sort, he seems a bit too healthy.

And the bunches who fake some sort of deformity. They seem to have shifts worked out; maybe there's an organization who controls it. Anyway, they get in their contorted positions and hold out a cup or a sign or whatever. Then when their shift is up, they straighten up, pick up their stuff, and go.

Re:Nope, it's the homeless

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

The homeless I see often near my work.
Crying baglady. (Always on the same corner, amd always crying.)
Shirtless birthday guy. (It is always his birthday, and he moves corners.)
Homeless HIV+ guy. (He is so unflaggingly upbeat and positive, [pun intended], that I have given him a few bucks once in a while.)
I need to get to $PLACE to see my daughter. (I fell for it the first time I saw him. Now I loudly call him on his BS.)

Re:Nope, it's the homeless

[phorm]

At a street corner in Vancouver.

beggar: "Hey man, can I have some change to get a hot-dog"
me: "No problem, the vendor is right there, I'll buy you a dog"
beggar: "Oh no, just give me some cash, I don't accept food from strangers"
me: "f*** off"

Not true at all

[msobkow]

What makes people ignore the homeless is the fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of them roaming the streets of major (and not so major) cities. When I was in Regina, you couldn't walk 4 blocks without being accosted with demands for money, cigarettes, etc.

After a year or so of living there I used to just give them the finger and keep walking. It's not that I'm heartless -- I just don't care to be badgered everywhere I go when these lazy fucks could go on welfare and be housed like anyone else. Aside from that, I'm on disability -- I have no more money to spare than someone on welfare after I pay for my meds. Adding to that, I'd actually stopped to talk to and gotten to know a few of them, and found most of them were *on* welfare and did their begging to pay for booze and drugs, not because they needed the money to survive.

Sympathy. You'll find it between "shit" and "syphilis".

Re:Not true at all

[Simulant]

You've restored my faith in humanity.

some kind of basic income better then jail / priso

[Joe_Dragon]

some kind of basic income better then jail / prison

yes some homeless people are in and out of local jails alot some even use them as there doctor

Sounds like a rigorous study

[sootman]

So if they say technology "is making" things worse, I assume they have videos from 10 or 20 years ago to compare to this new footage?

I've lived near and worked in SF and have plenty of experience ignoring the homeless. You just have to. As a friend of mine -- who has a degree in theology -- once said, "If I sold everything I owned and gave all the money to the homeless, the end result would be that there's one more homeless person in the world." I've given money to some and ignored others.

Homelessness is a very complex issue with many sides. Some people are homeless by choice, some due to losing a job/house/etc., some due to mental issues or addictions. Some are benign, some are dangerous. And the #1 issue for anyone who thinks homelessness can be easily "solved": Some would work if given the chance, some wouldn't.

The Alternative

[SuperKendall]

What could be worse than food!?

Taco Bell

What empathy do they have anyway?

[dbIII]

Considering nearly all of what Americans call Christianity has purged "the good samaritan" from what they teach and instead taken a "if you have money it proves you deserve the love of Jesus" approach then what empathy was there for the poor in the first place?
Also people just cannot see themselves falling into that position so they blame the victims. The attitudes to and of the Katrina refugees pointed that out very well - we had "pious" people like Barbara Bush saying that people who were homeless before Katrina should not be helped and we had people that suddenly found themselves becoming the "worthless homeless person" they never imagined they would be and having to rely on charity, even if it was only for a short time.
Another way to look at it is at this time any homeless person in the USA has a more positive financial balance sheet than Donald Trump. He defaulted on a couple of vast fortunes in debt and comes nowhere near matching them since, but his connections allow him to be respected instead of despised like the homeless people that also ran out of money.

Obviously

[dbIII]

You don't have money to do much for the homeless and neither do I. However we both pay taxes to people with the resources to deal with the problem in bulk.

GoPro?

[PPH]

The least they could have done was to pony up for some Google Glass.

At least the homeless could have pawned them for some spending money.

Re:GoPro makes dubious claim...

[jddj]

DIsagree.

I haven't seen the project in TFA, but I HAVE seen an interaction design project where GoPro cameras were put on the heads of first-graders in a lunchroom.

I have to say, the experience of seeing a first-person view through the eyes of someone 5 years old was amazing and eye-opening. Certainly, I don't have direct access to the first-graders' thoughts, but I DO have a certain access to their experience through these recordings, which I wouldn't have but for this unique instrumentation.

Try it out before you knock it. I'd say that Glass could potentially do the same thing with the homeless, if people didn't look like such rich, entitled dorks wearing Glass. There are other lower-profile life-logging cameras which could do a good job of this (I've seen one in use. The owner said people never ask her about it). Nothing about the GoPro is so special to the task.

FYI, I work in User Experience and Interaction Design, don't own a GoPro, nor do I work for them or own stock in their firm.

the real truth

[slashmydots]

I don't like the homeless because I met a bunch of them. They sincerely are lazy, unmotivated, and/or drug addicts. There's a temp agency in town where if you show up sober in the morning, you work. The end. If something is preventing you from doing that, it's probably your fault. So that's why I dislike and don't empathize with the homeless. I'm CIO of one company and the rest of the day run a computer repair shop just to make ends meet. I typically work 12 hour days. One of my homeless friends...well, he spends all day playing Magic the Gathering at a hobby shop, hanging out at various locations, bumming rides off people, and stays at the homeless shelter. When we told him to get a job at a temp agency for even just a week, he said he doesn't do that kind of work because he doesn't like it. He's also convinced he's unhireable because he's homeless but it's a cover for being lazy. THAT right there is the homeless. So take your Go Pro and shove it up your ass.

Texas Has Fewer Homeless, California More

[Nova Express]

Compared to when The Great Recession Started.

"California, with just under 12% of the nation's population, has 22.43% of the nation's homeless population, giving it a homelessness quotient of 0.88. Quite high, in other words. Almost double the number of homeless people one would predict, given its population."

"Texas, which has roughly 8.2% of the nation's population, only has 4.85% of the nation's homeless population (meaning: Texas has a quite low homelessness quotient of -0.41)."

Growing economy = less homeless, contracting economy = more homeless.

Go look at the statistics if you doubt it.

Re:Texas Has Fewer Homeless, California More

[David Jao]

This argument is ridiculous. You're on slashdot. You should know better. Should California start deporting homeless people to lower its homelessness quotient? How about just outright killing them? For that matter, prisoners don't count as homeless, so let's incarcerate them. I'm not homeless, but if I were, I'd do everything possible to get myself to California. Obviously (to everyone but you), this does not mean that California or its policies cause homelessness in the first place.

Re:Texas Has Fewer Homeless, California More

[phorm]

It's also California...

warm pleasant weather = greater concentration of homeless...

Umm

[floodo1]

how hard is it to not look at all, even without a piece of technology distracting you?

I think there's a more important question...

[tlambert]

How many homeless volunteers took off with the camera and sold it to buy booze?

I think there's a more important question... how many mountain lions, gazelles, and other animals took off with the Harmless Radio Collars(tm) that Marlon Perkins had Jim Fowler attach to them while filming Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom"?

Homeless for 6 year or 30 years

[JumperCable]

The article says he has been homeless for 6 years and recently feel on hard times due to a loss of his wife and mother turning to alcohalism.

However this video from the same project says that he has been on the streets for 30 years. (21 seconds in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The story doesn't jive.

Re:Homeless for 6 year or 30 years

[wonkey_monkey]

The story doesn't jive.

Jibe. Jiiii-buh.

3D-printing

[hooiberg]

Go print your own house!

Or, maybe...

[wonkey_monkey]

Or maybe we lack empathy for an apparently homeless man who clearly has a hundreds-of-dollars camera strapped to his chest.

Norway: super rich country with strong support?

[fantomas]

Non-Norwegian here. Isn't Norway one of the richest countries in the world with a strong social support system? So the situations which make somebody homeless in other countries don't apply to Norway?

For example - in USA, I believe that people have to pay for healthcare, and after a certain period of time, no longer get housing benefit support when unemployed (USA person will have to help me here) - so it is possible to be a hard working member of society, but due to illness, get in debt (paying for medicine) and end up homeless (because you can't work, so can't pay your housing bills) so get made homeless, and can't get another place to live because you don't have the money to rent a new place?

If somebody is ill in Norway, do they have to pay for healthcare? if somebody is unemployed, will the state give them financial support to pay their housing costs? If so, you have a very different environment from other countries in the world.

Re:Norway: super rich country with strong support?

[OneAhead]

American here. Aren't most other developed countries countries some of the richest countries in the world with a strong social support system? So the situations which make somebody homeless in the USA don't apply to other developed countries?

FTFY.

Romani =! homeless of the streets

[advid.net]

I will not comment on your rant about Romani, everyone in Europe may have his own experience regarding those people, and I do as well.

However, mentioning this group seems a bit off-topic, since there are not homeless living in the street:
They always quickly setup their slum camp in any 'free' area they can find.
Those are not great homes, but a two years old slum camp will have upgraded the garbage tents into small homes with heating, electricity and TV Sat.

Re:First Post

[Johann Lau]

Funny, you sound kinda ungrateful, lazy and full of shit yourself..

Taxation part of the equation?

[linuxrunner]

I honestly think it's hard to feel empathetic for more and more people when WE ourselves are doing what we can to just get by...

Sure, we have our luxuries (cell phones, cable tv, internet, car) but then again more and more of these things are becoming necessities in today's world.

Need to do some work from home? internet needed. Emergency work call? Phone needed
Car? To and from work.

But just being tax day, and I owned another 3600 in taxes, it's hard to truly "give". Sure I'll toss a dollar or two when I've been asked. I don't do it out of guilt, I do it because that's the kind of guy I am.

Now I have it in my abilities to give a lot more, but I don't. Why? I feel that when I pay so much in taxes that I know are sadly going to people sucking off the system, EBT cards in strip clubs, etc. I have no more respect for the system and feel I've given more than enough.

Give me my money back, show me you're cracking down on abuse in the system, and I'll gladly give you more directly to those in need.

This could work

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Gotta get ready for work so can't rtfa, but I might indeed pay for split-screen, two-viewpoint bumfights.

Not a study, just an opinion

[gsslay]

I was expecting some kind of study or evidence to back this claim up, based on what they've found from attaching GoPros to homeless people.

But apparently all it comes down to is the personal opinion of one homeless person who agreed to take part. Nothing factual at all.

So a better headline for this would be "Homeless Man Thinks Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless".

Technology is (and was never) the culprit

[luis_a_espinal]

GoPro Project Claims Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless

They can only make that claim if they have hard data that shows people in the past being more emphatic towards others. Without that, the claim is bogus.

There has always been compassionate people, before and now. And there has always been nihilistic, selfish people, before and now. Technology has nothing to do with it.

Confirmation Bias: Seems True

[drinkypoo]

There's definitely a lot of people in this thread with no fucking empathy, and this is a technology-related site. Checkmate, Obama! Or something.

Re:First Post

[Johann Lau]

I know, all the alpha-females are already taken by people who need to talk shit about homeless and Chinese people to feel better about themselves. They like their sex angry and bitter, with an aftertaste of frustration and pettyness, and I for one cannot blame them.

Capital gains plus corporate income

[tepples]

but if you make $100M a year from investments you will pay 15%

My understanding is that capital gains tax is lower because the business you're investing in has already paid its half in corporate income tax. It's like the FICA (Social Security and Medicare) tax in the United States: part of it gets deducted from gross income, and part of it the employer has to pay separately.

Re:Capital gains plus corporate income

[Collective 0-0009]

But the company that pays my wages already pays all kinds of tax, so why isn't my tax cut in half? If the company had paid no tax, I would get a bigger check and could pay more taxes.

That is the exact same thing as saying "But the company I own already pays all kinds of taxes..."

Either way you gain income from a company, wages or profit income, you gained income from a entity that has already paid taxes. The lower capital gains is nothing more than sticking it to the wage earners. Full stop.

Re:Capital gains plus corporate income

[aardvarkjoe]

My understanding is that capital gains tax is lower because the business you're investing in has already paid its half in corporate income tax.

Not really; after all, the government has no trouble "double-taxing" money any time you give them half a chance; and if that was really the concern then the amount of time that the investment was held wouldn't matter. The fundamental reason for the lower tax rate is to encourage long-term investment -- and the theory is that by so doing, corporations have a better opportunity to be profitable (which of course translates into more incoming tax dollars.)

Re:Capital gains plus corporate income

[HornWumpus]

The fundamental reason is capital is mobile. It will go where it gets the highest rate of return. If you want a healthy economy you need investment capital.

Re:Capital gains plus corporate income

[Dahamma]

But that's completely untrue for most of the money made from the stock market. Only dividends could even possibly work that way, and given that dividends a) usually only pay a few percent that's NOT how wealthy people are getting 10-15%+ return on their investments, and b) are not generally based on the gross profits but set based on the price of the stock as a way to give back cash flow.

If you buy a stock, it doubles, you sell it and pay 15% capital gains tax, NONE of that profit had ANYTHING to do with corporate income tax. Same goes for shorting a stock or trading in derivatives, which is where the real money is made.

And besides, it's a fairly spurious argument in the first place, since employees paid from corporations, service workers paid by those employees, sales taxes paid when you use your income already taxed, etc all work the same way. Taxes are not in general a one time fee taken from some pile of money, it's really a tax on the exchange and flow of money, so why should this be any different?

The value of land

[tepples]

Food, shelter, education and healthcare are all the result of human labor

There are areas where land's contribution to the cost of food and shelter can far exceed the contribution of labor. How much does farmland cost again? And where can one lawfully pitch a tent to sleep for the night?

Re:The value of land

[HornWumpus]

Last I looked, fertile midwest farmland was $2 - $4K $/acre.

You can legally camp for free in any national forest. But have to move camp weekly.

In any case the GGP is wrong, 'rights' do _not_ make slaves of others.

Background info on the homeless in San Francisco

[azav]

Disclosure:
I lived in San Francisco (the Marina) from 1992 until 2006. Ex girlfriend's mother was one of the homeless. I knew one of the former mayors and was privy to some inside information on why the was such a terrible homeless problem in San Francisco.

Onwards

One important historical factor is that judges from states in counties far north of San Francisco would frequently hand problem repeat offenders who were habitual drug offenders one way bus tickets to San Francisco because of its tolerant care of the homeless.

Until Gavin Newsom stopped it, bi-weekly support checks would be cut by the city for many of the homeless. As a result of this reliable cash cow, many of these people directly took their checks to check cashing stores on Market St. and the heroin dealers would often stand in line by these stores to handle their customers who were these homeless.

Off of Haight Street is Golden Gate Park. Loads of homeless beg on Haight St. and then camp out in Golden Gate Park at night and shoot up. Under the bushes, you'll be hard pressed to not find years of dirty needles under bushes stinking of urine.

Years of dirty needles.

At the South of Market train station to Silicon Valley, there used to be several unoccupied buildings. These buildings were often occupied by several homeless drug addicts.

Several minutes after the trains would leave, it was common that these drug addicts (heroin/meth) would walk Townsend St. and break into cars to steal stereos that they would then fence to get a quick high.

One habitual drunk in the Mission district would occasionally become sober, but then drink so much that he was 1/2 naked, passed out and covered in his own urine and feces. After the police were regularly called, the fire department would be called to hose him off, then the ambulance would be called and he would be taken to San Francisco General. Of course he paid for none of this.

After he got out, he'd stay sober for a little while and start the process all over again. This one man cost the city of San Francisco $50,000 annually in police, ambulance and hospital fees.

Every year.

The problem is NOT the homeless.

The problem IS the drug addicted homeless. Heroin addicts, meth addicts and habitual/chronic street drunks. They have stopped being people and have started becoming problems. They have become addicts who have really lost all parts of their minds that do not pertain to getting the next score. Their high is so good, their habits so strong that they can't live life without being high or drunk and do anything they can for that next sweet score.

The problem is the tolerance of the dealers of heavily addicting drugs.

The problem is the counties who provide one way bus tickets to failure for their society's rejects.

After you see so many people on Van Ness St. who inject so much that their veins collapse and legs rot off, then wheel themselves out to beg another day, you see that these people will do nothing, can do nothing, to change their situation. They still will break into your car and cost you 2,500 dollars in damage. If you live on Haight St, they will still shit in your doorway every morning. They will still sit in a pool of their own urine to beg for enough money for their next score. They will not even recognize the face of their own daughter trying to give them food.

Empathy is the last thing you have for these people and for the reasons they have ended up in it.

Watching this for 14 years as you drive through the middle of it to battle the 101, 280, or East Bay traffic on your 1.5 hour commute you lose much more than all respect for them.

Empathy is the last thing you have for them.

It is a terrible situation they are in, but empathy is the last thing you have for them.

So, how do you fix this?

The real reason there's a homeless problem:

[kheldan]

Because the richest people and the most powerful people want them to remain homeless and down, as a warning to the rest of us to "keep in line", otherwise we'll be made to live like them.

The solution to homelessness needs to come from the top, down. However the 'top' isn't terribly interested in really doing anything about it, otherwise we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore. Instead those of us not at the top are expected to shoulder the burden in addition to our own responsibilities. This of course is utter bullshit and won't work. The homelessness problem all over the world will cease to exist when the people at the Top are forced to invest their resources in solving it, once and for all. And by 'once and for all' I don't mean 'round them up and make them disappear', either. There are homeless who are only such because they couldn't find a job, and since they're now homeless nobody will GIVE them a job; fix that problem! There are homeless who are mentally ill or stuck in a cycle of drug abuse; get them the help they need! I think we'd find there is a surprisingly small number of homeless people who want to be homeless and be leeches on society. Identify them and 'deal' with them appropriately, because that's something we just can't have anymore. I'm a firm believer in 'pulling your own weight', and the people that think they can be exempt from that need to be taught otherwise. But as I say I think those are a small percentage. Everyone else who is in the 'homeless' category should be allowed the help they need to not be homeless anymore -- and it needs to come from the TOP, not the BOTTOM.

Re:Background info on the homeless in San Francisc

[ThEATrE]

The real problem is the nonsensical jobs people work that contribute negatively to our society more than any homeless person can.

fraud horseshit

[globaljustin]

No. When the government is doing it, then it becomes a right to a resource that the person is entitled to. They will abuse it and rob the tax payer blind if they are allowed.

This is the most ass-backwards, head-up-your-ass argument...it's opposite to logic but it *sounds* so logical to people who don't think analytically

Take this **same philosophy** that you're accusing all people who receive assistance of having and apply it to your personal finances...

**ANYONE** who doesn't take advantage of all the government's programs for their benefit is an idiot, wasting resources

corporations spend **BILLIONS** to do just as you describe...maximizing their benefits

people don't want to be broke and poor...your whole logic is fallacious and it's obvious you're a closet Republican...just spouting the same tired bullshit

Just maybe

[terrywirth5]

you should pay your fair share of taxes at a fair rate and just maybe it will trickle down to the less fortunate.

Re:GoPro makes dubious claim...

[RespekMyAthorati]

if people didn't look like such rich, entitled dorks wearing Glass

In contrast to someone going around with a GoPro stuck to their head. No chance for selection bias, there.

Republicans do help - directly

[SuperKendall]

The US is allegedly a rich country, that your government chooses not to help is the problem.

We choose not to have the government help much, because government is inherently wasteful.

Instead many Americans donate money to charitable organizations that waste far less of the money, so more people obtain help... America by far has the highest rate of donation to charity.

I've always wondered how god-fearing republicans can choose to not the help poor people

That's where you are utterly, terribly wrong - I am an independent, and do not attend church. But I know a lot of "god-fearing republicans" that donate a large amount of charity, plus every church I've every know has lots of missionary work they do to help the poor.

In fact if you look at statistics you'll find that Republicans donate quite a lot more (on average thousands more) than Democrats do - because like you they don't really care about helping the poor, they just want to feel like they are.